Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Papillon-Method

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spinning Spark 19:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Papillon-Method[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is about a relatively new theory developed by Hardyna Vedder. There seems to be no reliable reporting or coverage of the topic, either cited in the article or (as far as I can see) available online. Current references do not seem to talk about the Papillon Method, but about other tangential topics. I can't see any benefit in retaining this article in its current state, unfortunately. Wikipedia isn't the place for promoting new research. Sionk (talk) 00:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are a few google books results for papillon method but they seem to refer to something else. --Cerebellum (talk) 17:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:40, 11 November 2012

Not delete: Independent reliable sources of the topic, cited in the article and available online:

MERLOT, California State University

German Education Server Education Server Berlin Brandenburg Education Server Lower Saxony Education Server Baden-Wurttemberg

The Papillon-Method is published under the heading of "Learning in the 21st century" (Lernen im 21. Jahrhundert). No tangential topic, rather concretely Papillon Method.

Scholar: Expert report on PapillonMethod by Hans Prengel Graduate in Media Studies, University of Technology, Berlin, Institute for Language and Communication Media Studies Department Expert report on PapillonMethod--Peters888 (talk) 20:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)

Comment - possible WP:SOCK, this AfD is the editor's only contribution. The first 'independent' link is actually an e-book by Vedder. The remaining 'articles' seem to be announcements linking to Vedder's website (www.pio-pio.de), while I can't see any mention in the Lower Saxony Landesinstitut link. Sionk (talk) 10:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Lower Saxony Landesinstitut [1]--Peters888 (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)'[reply]

The message/announcement is signed by Hardyna Vedder, which looks again like it is the author promoting their own research. Sionk (talk) 00:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Topolino1979 (talk) 06:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC) The Papillon Method deals with an interesting topic for my studies in Knowledge Management. As Google tries to improve its "Docs" with "Research Links" and ebooks are enriched by videos and multiple hyperlinks, the Papillon Method is really worth to be mentioned.[reply]

From your point of view, Wikipedia recognizes state institutions such as the German Education Server and education platforms of countries as not reliable and independent sources. Moreover, sources like MERLOT, California State University and an expert report by scholar of University of Technology, Berlin, were not challenged and therefore recognized.

Do not delete: From my point of view, there are two reliable sources. They seem to meet the Wikipedia rules for publication.

Delete There may be potential for an article here, but it would have to start over. The current version is so unencyclopedic that it would be difficult to reuse it: it is written as an advertisement for the program. DGG ( talk ) 19:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.